Results for “review-responses”

Structure responses to referee reports for R&R submissions

Address PR review comments by fetching, evaluating, fixing, replying, pushing, and re-requesting review.

通用跨模型审查：Review LLM 对任意研究制品进行独立评审，输出结构化评分、wiki 实体映射与改进建议

Load this skill when the user says "resolve comments", "resolve-comments", or "/resolve-comments". Checks open PR review comments, addresses valid ones in a single batched commit, and resolves all threads with appropriate replies.

Code Review Reception

Use after Cell reviews arrive to triage the decision, prioritize the (often substantial) new experiments by impact × feasibility, and draft a point-by-point response that is respectful, evidence-led, and closes the "completeness" gaps reviewers demand. Do not run before the experiments and revision are actually done.

Processes a PR's review comments (Copilot or human), classifies them, applies the fixes that belong, replies to each thread, and pushes. Use whenever the user says "address the review", "fix what Copilot said", "handle the comments", mentions Copilot already reviewed a PR, or passes a PR number/URL with pending reviews — or in Spanish "revisá los comentarios", "arreglá lo que dijo Copilot", "atendé el review".

Reviews a pull request: runs its own baseline review of the PR diff, then a persistent Monitor watches CI and incoming reviewer comments, triages each comment through an independent skeptical agent, applies only verified fixes, and commits+pushes via inline git commands until CI passes and no comments remain to adopt — then asks whether to merge. Use this skill when the user asks to "review a PR", "monitor PR review comments", "address reviewer feedback on #123", or "watch CI on a pull request".

Reviews and tailors Product Manager resumes against 10 best practices including the XYZ+S formula, keyword optimization, and job-specific customization.

Use when a skill needs the user to interactively review code changes in revdiff mid-workflow — working changes, staged changes, or a specific commit — then read their annotations back. Takes a review mode.

Use after NEJM reviews arrive — often including a dedicated statistical reviewer and an editor letter — to triage the decision, answer statistical comments rigorously, and draft a point-by-point response that quotes each comment, the response, and the revised manuscript text. Do not run before the main text is actually revised.

Resolves an approved article comment task into a publishable AI markdown reply by fetching article context from a local HTTP API (with sf-cli fallback), reasoning with the selected quote and full article content, and writing the final reply to a backend-provided local result file path.

任意のリポジトリ（アプリ/ライブラリ/運用スクリプト/コンテンツ等）の種別を判定し、 種別に応じた評価軸（品質・テスト・依存、または検証ゲート等）で**実測ベース**評価して優先度付き改善案を出すスキル。 言語非依存（Python は AST 詳細・その他は近似と明記）。ベンダーコード混入・除外の空振り・偽の成功終了コードなど、 「黙って間違った数値を出す」失敗を構造的に封じる。 「リポジトリレビューして」「コード品質を評価して」「このプロジェクトを診断して」「包括レビュー」「repo-review」 「アーキテクチャ評価して」等で発火。/repo-review でも起動。

针对 Modular RAG MCP Server 项目的老师式复习 Agent。按章节带领用户系统复习项目知识点，每道题互动问答、给出参考答案，复习结束后记录掌握进度，每次开始时回顾上次进度并建议继续或复习。Use when user says '复习项目', '帮我复习', '带我复习', '开始复习', '项目复习', 'review project', 'study review', '学习复习', '复盘', or wants to systematically review and study the project.

Classify reply sentiment and determine next action

Turn interactive commit reviews back on for the current herdr workspace.

针对 Modular RAG MCP Server 项目的老师式复习 Agent。按章节带领用户系统复习项目知识点，每道题互动问答、给出参考答案，复习结束后记录掌握进度，每次开始时回顾上次进度并建议继续或复习。Use when user says '复习项目', '帮我复习', '带我复习', '开始复习', '项目复习', 'review project', 'study review', '学习复习', '复盘', or wants to systematically review and study the project.

Use after PNAS reviews arrive to triage the decision, prioritize experiments, and draft a point-by-point response that is respectful, evidence-led, and honest about limits. Do not run before the main text is actually revised.

Use when the superpowers-evaluator returned REWORK on a batch, when fixing rework items from an evaluation report, or when receiving any code review feedback on superpowers output. Requires technical rigor and verification instead of performative agreement or blind implementation.

Draft performance reviews, self-assessments, peer reviews, and upward feedback in your own voice using WorkIQ to surface actual contributions and structure them into impact-focused writing.

Use when responding to a Revise & Resubmit decision from AER, AER:Insights, or an AEJ, and a point-by-point response letter plus aligned manuscript revisions are needed. Handles triage, the concede / clarify / push-back decision, and the response-letter format that editors actually read.

Decide which pull-request review comments are actionable. Use when addressing review feedback, monitoring a PR, or filtering already-handled comments.

Requesting Code Review

Use when finishing a task, before merging, or when giving or receiving code review feedback on this repo - covers when to request a review, how to scope it, and how to respond to feedback with technical rigor instead of reflexive agreement.

Resolve GitHub PR feedback end-to-end for the branch you are on. Use when you need to fetch all comments on the branch PR, evaluate whether each comment still applies, decide whether it should be addressed, implement fixes, run compile/tests with retry-on-failure, then commit and push the result.

Ultra-compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/review", or invokes /caveman-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.

Provides a structured protocol for receiving and evaluating code review feedback, emphasizing technical verification over performative agreement.

Review governed memory proposals, policy tags, tombstones, and effective memory.

当一段改动已经写完、要在收尾或合并前对它做一次独立审查时使用——如"审一遍这条分支、review 这次改动、这批代码有没有问题、帮我把关再合"。先把 BASE..HEAD 生成一份审查包一次读完，再按 correctness / readability / architecture / security / performance 五轴加测试质量逐项判定，输出带 file:line 的 Critical / Important / Minor 分级 findings。composable 层能力单元，通常由 execute-task 在整体验收时调用。不要用于：改动还没写完、只想跑测试、要的是动手修复而不是审查、评审需求或技术方案本身。

Post-epic review to extract lessons and assess success. Use when the user says "run a retrospective" or "lets retro the epic [epic]"

Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something

Perform a read-only, defect-first review of a specified code change and return every actionable finding. Use when another agent delegates review of uncommitted changes, a base-branch diff, a commit, or custom review instructions.

Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something